See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/23539274

Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food

Supply Chains in Rural Development

Article  in  Environment and Planning A · March 2003

DOI: 10.1068/a3510 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

1,358 10,267

3 authors, including:

Henk Renting
RUAF Foundation (International Network of Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture and Food Security)
111 PUBLICATIONS   5,632 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multagri View project

COFAMI encouraging collective farmers marketing initiatives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Henk Renting on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environment and Planning A 2003, volume 35, pages 393 ^ 411

DOI:10.1068/a3510

Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role

of short food supply chains in rural development

Henk Rentingô
Rural Sociology Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen, University, 1 Hollandseweg,
NL 6706KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands; e-mail: Henk.Renting@wur.nl
Terry K Marsden, Jo Banks
Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building,
King Edward VII Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WA, Wales; e-mail: MarsdenTK@cardiff.ac.uk
Received 15 January 2002; in revised form 9 July 2002

Abstract. In this paper we explore the development and incidence of alternative food networks within
a European-wide context. By developing a consistent definition of short food supply chains, we
address both the morphology and the dynamics of these, and then examine empirical evidence
concerning their incidence and rural development impact across seven EU member states. These
developments need to be seen as one significant contribution to the current transitions in rural
Europe concerning the crisis of conventional intensive and productivist agriculture and the public
consumer pressure for a larger variety of distinctive `quality' food products.

1 Introduction
In recent years we have witnessed the emergence of new forms of dynamism in
agricultural commodity markets. These are to be situated within the context of a more
general transition in rural economies, characterised by some as the shift from a
productivist to a `postproductivist' food regime (Ilbery and Bowler, 1998; Schucksmith,
1993), whereas others speak of the establishment of a new `rural development para-
digm' (van der Ploeg et al, 2000). The creation, operation, and evolution of `new' or
`alternative' food supply chains is one of the key dimensions of new rural development
patterns now emerging. As Marsden (1998, page 107) states, ``food markets are becom-
ing more differentiated on the basis of a range of socially constructed food quality
criteria'', resulting in the emergence of new quality-food markets in addition to (and
superimposed on) existing anonymous mass food markets.
The food chain dimension has become a key element enabling us to understand
better new patterns of rural development (Marsden et al, 2000a) and, potentially also,
a significant building block for future policies designed to influence these. In this paper
we explore some key aspects of the relation between food supply chains and broader
issues of rural development. In this, a direct link between theory and practice is made.
It is contended that to understand the role of food supply chains in rural development
more fully, we need to come to grips with the empirical richness of emerging alter-
native food networksöby examining how these are built, shaped, and reproduced over
time and spaceöand we need to understand better the extent to which they actually
deliver in terms of rural development objectives.
In the analysis ample reference is made to European examples of alternative food
networks. These are drawn from case studies presented in the COST A12 Working
Group and, most importantly, from the results of European-wide IMPACT research
on the socioeconomic impact of rural development practices. The construction of new

ô Henk Renting is the coordinator of the IMPACT project, the full title of which is ``The socio-
economic impact of rural development policies: realities and potentials'' (CT-4288). The IMPACT
project is financed under the Fourth Framework FAIR-programme by the European Commission.
394 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

food supply chain configurations forms a crucial element in the strategies underlying
these new practices, as is the case with, for example, organic farming, quality
production, and direct selling. The presented figures underline the impressive growth
of new food supply chains in recent years.
At the same time, a comparative analysis makes clear that there is a diversity of
competing definitions of quality along these food supply chains, both between and
within countries. This is exemplified by the very different ways in which consumer
demands and new producer supplies are articulated to specific (organic, integrated,
regional, artisanal, etc) production `codes'. These differences result from a diversity in
farming systems and territorial settings, different cultural and gastronomic traditions, a
diversity in the organisational structures of food supply chains, variations in consumer
perceptions, and also from substantial differences in institutional and policy support.
At the outset of the paper it is important to address some definitional issues. The
term alternative food networks (AFNs) is here used as a broad embracing term to
cover newly emerging networks of producers, consumers, and other actors that
embody alternatives to the more standardised industrial mode of food supply
(Murdoch et al, 2000). This fits with the general use of this term by the COST A12
Working Group (see editorial of this issue). To understand the diverse nature and
dynamics of AFNs, however, we have found it necessary to employ more specific
empirically identifiable concepts and parameters. In this paper, therefore, we attempt
to explore these different dimensions by beginning to specify empirically different types
of AFN. In the IMPACT study, for instance, three categories of alternative or short
food supply chains (SFSCs) are used: organic farming, quality production, and direct
selling. These have been consistently applied to the collection and analysis of empirical
evidence. The SFSC concept is more specific than AFNs, and, rather, covers (the
interrelations between) actors who are directly involved in the production, processing,
distribution, and consumption of new food products.
As the analysis in this paper indicates, it is important not to overly `prejudge' or
theoretically restrict definitions of AFNs given the current scarcity of theoretical and
empirical work conducted upon them. There is an urgent need for more specific
concepts that help us to grasp the variability of AFNs and begin to provide an
improved `toolbox' with which to explore the heterogeneity of AFNs. This paper can
be seen partly as a contribution to understanding the different levels of conceptual and
empirical definition and specification of these new rural realities. AFNs, by their
nature, employ different social constructions and equations with ecology, locality,
region, quality convention, and consumer cultures. As such, a major theoretical and
empirical task is to explore how these evolve and contribute, in different ways, to rural
development: or, we should perhaps say, rural developments.
We start here, in section 2 of the paper, by examining some of the problems
associated with the conventional food sector in advanced economies. The decline in
consumer trust, in addition to the continued farm-based `price squeeze', can be seen as
setting some of the broader conditions for the uneven development of food supply
chains. We then begin to address the conceptual and empirical challenges identified
above by, first, attempting to explore the different mechanisms for extending SFSCs in
time and space, and the variety of quality definitions employed within SFSCs
(section 3). These conceptualisations are based upon intensive case-study analysis
conducted as part of the IMPACT and COST studies. In the second analytical section
we take a wider empirical approach. We attempt to estimate, through the construction
of national-based quantitative evidence, the incidence and the levels of extra value
added attained in the development of different SFSCs (section 4). Both of these
analytical sections are, by their nature, exploratory. Nevertheless, they begin, as we
Understanding alternative food networks 395

shall discuss at more length in conclusion, to assess critically the opportunities,

potentials, and barriers to the wider diffusion of SFSCs, and the potential contribution
of SFSCs to wider aspects of rural development.
The foregoing exploratory analysis begins, then, not only to demonstrate the
inherent diversity of such rural development practices, but also to raise some important
questions about their evolutionary development over time and space, and the degree to
which different institutional forms of support are a necessary precondition for their
continuance. As such, it helps us to assess critically whether the recent growth of
SFSCs represents either a long-lasting countermovement, or a more short-term range
of potentially abortive local initiatives.

2 Setting the conditions for the emergence of AFNs

AFNs have long been advocated as one potential solution to the problems of peripheral
rural regions. Indeed, the market niches resulting from new processes of commoditisa-
tion(1) in food markets have traditionally been seen as mainly relevant for less-favoured
rural areas. They were thought to embody a potential way out for vulnerable regional
production systems, whose survival was threatened by market liberalisation and produc-
tivist technological developments (Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1999; OECD, 1995). Much less
reference was made to regions that were highly integrated in global food markets like the
Netherlands, and much of the United Kingdom, where the dominant discourse foresaw a
continued expansion of food production systems along the lines of modernisation and
within conventional market structures.
Actual and more recent developments suggest that this dominant discourse has
been largely a misconception. It is now suggested by many that we are witnessing an
impressive growth of a variety of new food-production and trade circuits falling outside
the conventional model of agriculture. Although still highly fragmented and anecdotal,
these new rural development practices are being increasingly well documented,(2)
making clear that their occurrence is by no means restricted to peripheral areas and
that they are spreading to the same extent in parts of the European countryside
previously conceived of as `growth poles' of productivist agriculture.
The emergence of new food circuits in globalised agricultural economies should be
seen against the background of a number of fundamental changes along the different
links of the agrofood chain. On the consumption side of the agrofood chain important
transitions in consumer perceptions of food and farming have occurred. These can be
seen partly as the consequences of a more generally increased public concern over
issues like ecology, health, and animal welfare, resulting in the emergence of a potential
market for food products that are distinguished in credible ways on one or more of the
contested quality aspects of food. Most of all, however, changing consumer perceptions
have been fed by a growing distrust in the quality of food stemming from conventional
agriculture. Since the late 1970s the public image of agriculture has become dominated
by an ongoing stream of `food scandals' ranging from salmonella and bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy (BSE) to dioxine residues in milk. While governments and experts
stress, time and again, that supposed health hazards lack any scientific basis, con-
sumer distrust in modern food production has become firmly rooted (Goodman, 1999).
New eventsöbe it the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or the
(1) Long and van der Ploeg (1988) define commoditisation as the extension of markets to new

spheres of activity or the imposition of new types of market relations on existing ones.
(2) Interesting in this respect are the `atlas' type of overviews of rural innovations being published in

several countries (for example, IATP, 1998; Stassart and Engelen, 1999; van Broekhuizen et al, 1997;
and van der Ploeg et al, 2002). Also the LEADER database contains numerous interesting cases
(LEADER, 2000).
396 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease öare perceived in the subjective reality of
many consumers as confirmations of their preestablished, negative image of modern
food production.
A report of the Dutch Council for Rural Areas (Council for Rural Areas, 1998)
identifies the capacity to regain consumer trust as a major factor conditioning the
future development of food markets. The delinking of food production, processing, and
consumption inherent to the industrial mode of food supply created a structural
necessity to establish some kind of institutionalised food quality guarantee. In former
times, when food was produced in the direct surroundings or even by the household
itself, the need for this was less apparent. `What the farmer does not know, he will not
eat' goes a Dutch proverb, indicating that the perception of food quality in former
times was mainly founded on personal observation and social networks in the direct
vicinity. With the expansion of mass food markets the regulation of food quality
necessarily became more institutionalised, resulting in the emergence of an expert
system of (semi)governmental agencies for the control of `food quality' and its stan-
dardisation in objectified and measurable technical parameters. For several decades
this arrangement met broad social support, but now industrialised food production is
under fire, the conventional institutional regime and the objectified quality standards it
embodies are also increasingly challenged. Large consumers groups no longer tend to
believe or trust unconditionally in the expert system formally assigned to protect the
safety of what they eat and drink.(3)
Future developments in food markets depend considerably on the differentiated
capacity of food circuits to regain consumer trust and establish new institutional
arrangements guaranteeing food quality in credible ways. This must be seen against the
background of a highly dynamic market with trends and fashions, in which products
sometimes go as fast as they arrive.(4) Food consumption is increasingly intertwined
with different lifestyles, meaning that different, sometimes strongly diverging, images
and expectations are projected on food products. Instead of meeting basic, minimum
quality standards, future food will be increasingly `designed' and `socially constructed'
in response to specific demands.(5) Where easy preparation is expected, convenience
food (prewashed, precut, and precooked) is constructed; where time pressure domi-
nates, fast food emerges. The quality definitions are also contextual for health food,
regional quality food, organic food, slow food, etc. Even between different spheres of
activity within the daily life of one individual quality, expectations may diverge con-
siderably, resulting in complex and sometimes internally contradictory `hybrid'
consumer demands.(6)
From the producer side of the agrofood chain, the emergence of new food supply
chains should also be seen in the light of the continuous and increased pressure on
farm incomes. The modernisation approach to agriculture embodied a specific econo-
mic logic that sustained farm incomes by increasing total production volume and
simultaneously enhancing the technical efficiency of production (van der Ploeg et al,
2000). For several reasons this once so successful model reached its limits towards the
(3) Interestingly, this trend is not confined to food production, but is also apparent in other spheres
of contemporary `risk society' (Beck, 1992). It can be related to the decreased transparency and
growing anonymity of production relations in globalised economies.
(4) A recent report of the consultancy Moret Ernst & Young states that two out of three newly

introduced products disappear from the supermarket shelves within one year. For `me too'ö
productsöintended to profit by imitation from innovations of othersöthe failure is 80%.
(5) Lash and Urry (1994) in this respect identify the growing `design intensity' of production as a

fundamental characteristic of contemporary production regimes.

(6) On holiday in the countryside we do not have the same quality expectations towards food as at

home or in the canteen at our workplace.

 Understanding alternative food networks 397

end of the 20th century. Total production volume could no longer be expanded because
of the saturation of markets, increased possibilities for sourcing food industries
with nonagricultural primary materials, and growing opposition to the `dumping' of
surpluses on world markets.
At the same time, production costs increased dramatically. This is related partly to
the `technological treadmill' (Cochrane, 1979), pressing farms to invest continuously in
new technologies so as not to lose out in the race for the lowest production costs.
In addition, farms are confronted with several obligatory investments springing from
new environmental regulations, animal-welfare standards, and sanitary measures.(7)
Product requirements from food industries and retailers had a similar cost-increasing
effect. Access to markets is increasingly conditioned by the capacity to meet specific
criteria, concerning the variety and appearance of products, membership of good-
practice labels, and the capacity for flexible delivery. The `regulatory treadmills' associated
with this (Ward, 1993) are rarely compensated with higher financial returns.
Developments on mass food markets therefore take the shape of a `squeeze' (see
figure 1), in which economic margins are structurally decreasing (van der Ploeg et al,
2000). Conventional answers are often no longer possible, as farm production is
increasingly limited through quota systems and environmental regulations. More
promising answers are founded in new ways of increasing financial revenuesöfor exam-
ple, by diversifying into new activities (nature and landscape management, agritourism,
etc), or by increasing value added on farm products (quality production, on-farm pro-
cessing, direct selling, etc). Another option involves new forms of cost reduction that, for
example, curb down costs related to `regulatory treadmills' in innovative ways.(8)
It is exactly this way out of the `squeeze' that is increasingly being adopted by
farmers which allows an understanding of the emergence of AFNs and diversified,
multifunctional forms of agriculture. A growing number of farmers are now prepared

New revenues
Revenues and costs (constant prices)

Squeeze

GVP

New forms of
cost reduction

Costs

Time
Note: GVPÐgross value of production.
Figure 1. Postwar agricultural development and the contours of rural development.
(7) Elsewhere, we have termed this the bureaucratic `hygienic' mode of food production (Marsden

et al, 2001).
(8) An outstanding example is the `environmental cooperatives' that emerged in Dutch agriculture

(Renting and van der Ploeg, 2001). By taking collective responsibility for the ecological sustain-
ability of rural development in their region these new cooperatives negotiated the freedom to
implement policies in more flexible ways and adjusted to local conditions. Various obligatory
investments related to `regulatory treadmills' could be avoided by this.
398 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

to try their luck with alternative forms of production and new ways of marketing, in
the conviction that mass food production for their farm no longer provides continuity
and sufficient income. These rural development practices are an active response of
farmers to the changing economic and political context of their enterprise, and they
correspond, at least partly, to the well-understood self-interest of the European farming
population. SFSCs represent, in this context, active attempts by producers to recapture
value in the supply chain in ways which can hopefully ameliorate the conventional
problems of the price squeeze. Nevertheless, these processes of `short-circuiting' the
conventional chains take a diversity of forms over time and space. In the next two
sections we explore how we might conceptually and empirically map the shape of these
rural development practices.

3 Exploring the morphology and dynamics of AFNs

To what extent, then, are these general consumer and regulatory trends inherent in the
conventional agrofood system beginning to foster the development of alternatives?
Although there is strong evidence that all over Europe new food networks are emerg-
ing, it is still too early to judge their viability and efficiency in delivering goals of
sustainable agriculture and rural development. This is partly a result of the absence
of empirical data of sufficient reach and quality, but also because of the relatively
`young' developmental stage of several experiences. Nevertheless, we suggest, it is
important to come to a clearer insight of the potential of these innovative practices.
Especially, it is a challenge to go beyond the singularities of individual cases and
progress to a wider overview and comparative analysis of their reach and impact.
The reconfiguration of supply chains is an important mechanism underlying
the emergence of new rural development practices. SFSCs hold the potential for
shifting food production out of its `industrial mode' and to break out of the long,
complex, and rationally organised industrial chains (Marsden et al, 2000b) within
which a decreasing proportion of total added value is captured by primary producers.
At the same time, new food supply chains are important carriers for creating new
linkages between agriculture and society, producers and consumers. They bring con-
sumers closer to the origins of their food and in many cases involve a more direct
contact between farmers and the end-users of their products. A key characteristic of
new supply chains is their capacity to resocialise or respatialise food, thereby allowing
the consumer to make new value judgments about the relative desirability of foods
on the basis of their own knowledge, experience, or perceived imagery. Commonly,
such foods are defined by either the locality or even the specific farm where they are
produced; and they serve to draw upon an image of the farm and/or region as a source
of quality. In this, often more direct linkages are created between farming on the one
hand and rural nature, cultural landscapes, and local resourcesöwhat the French call
the terroir of agricultural production (see Barjolle et al, 1998)öon the other hand.
For these reasons, rather than the unspecific adjectives `new' and `alternative', we
prefer `short' as a common denominator for the types of food supply chain that are
emerging within rural development. SFSCs on the one hand `short-circuit' the long,
anonymous supply chains characteristics of the industrial mode of food production. On
the other hand, producer ^ consumer relations are `shortened' and redefined by giving
clear signals on the provenance and quality attributes of food and by constructing
transparent chains in which products reach the consumer with a significant degree of
value-laden information. Lastly, SFSCs are an important carrier for the `shortening'
of relations between food production and locality, thereby potentially enhancing a
reembedding of farming towards more environmentally sustainable modes of production.
Understanding alternative food networks 399

The unexpected emergence of SFSCs demonstrates that we urgently need better

conceptualisations of the ways in which markets are socially constructed. In neo-
classical economics `the market' merely appears as external to the social world and
its outcome is thought to correspond to a singular, distinctive logic or `magic hand'.
The emergence of new food markets indicates that SFSCs are not the results of some
kind of external, elusive `free market'. They result, rather, from the active construction
of networks by various actors in the agrofood chain, such as farmers, food processors,
wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. To understand developments in food markets we
therefore need a `sociology of the market' (Marsden and Arce, 1995), which attempts to
unravel the patterns of social interaction between different actors in the agrofood chain
and analyses how supply chains are constructed as arrangements of interlocking
projects of these actors (van der Ploeg and Frouws, 1999).
The dimensions of SFSCs
One of the first key steps in progressing this agenda is the development of a better
understanding of the morphology and dynamics of SFSCs in order to come to grips
with the empirical variety of SFSCs throughout the European countryside. How can we
understand the different ways in which consumer demands and producer supplies are
articulated to specific (organic, regional, artisanal, etc) production `codes'? And why is
this in many cases accompanied with new market structures, whereas in others supply
and demand are articulated by conventional market players? In addressing these issues
it is important to go beyond a simple description of product flows and focus our
analysis on the type of relationship between producers and consumers in these supply
chains, and the role of this relationship is constructing value and meaning, rather than
focusing solely on the type of product itself.
On the basis of a comparative analysis of cases conducted as part of the IMPACT
and COST studies, two interrelated dimensions were identified to describe the empirical
variety of producer ^ consumer relations within SFSCs. A first dimension concerns their
organisational structure and the specific mechanisms entailed in these to extend relations
in time and space. A second dimension concerns the different quality definitions and
conventions involved in the construction and operation of SFSCs. With respect to the
first dimension three positions are distinguished, corresponding to different mechanisms
for extending SFSCs across longer distances in time and space (figure 2). It is important
to note that one business may be involved in supplying one or more of these different
supply chains.
A first category of SFSCs is essentially based on face-to-face interaction as a
mechanism for aligning producer ^ consumers networks. Consumers purchase products
directly from the producer or processor and authenticity and trust are mediated

Proximate SFSCs 3
3
Face-to-face SFSCs 3 Extended SFSCs
3

farm shops farm shop groups certification labels

farmers markets regional hallmarks production codes
roadside sales consumer cooperatives reputation effects
pick your own community supported agriculture
box schemes thematic routes (articulation in space)
home deliveries special events, fairs (articulation in time)
mail order local shops, restaurants, tourist enterprises
e-commerce `dedicated' retailers (for example, whole food,
speciality, or dietetic shops)
catering for institutions (canteens, schools)
sales to emigrants

Figure 2. Different mechanisms for extending short food supply chains (SFSCs) in time and
space.
400 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

through personal interaction. This category largely coincides with a narrow definition
of direct sales, be it through roadside sales, `pick your own', farmers markets, or farm
shops (Holloway and Kneafsey, 2000; Knickel and Hof, 2002; Pretty, 1998). Marketing
concepts like box schemes, mail order, and home deliveries offer some possibilities to
extend the reach of this form of SFSC, but mostly these remain restricted to individual
farms. The internet now provides opportunities for new variants of `face-to-face'
contact through online trading and e-commerce.
A second category of SFSCs extends its reach beyond direct interaction and is
essentially based on relations of proximity. Obviously, extending SFSCs over longer
distances in time and space supposes the creation of more complex institutional
arrangements. Most common is the cooperation between producers, who, for example,
widen their product range by exchanging products between farm shops or by combin-
ing individual products under a regional quality hallmark (Banks, 2001; Roep, 2002).
Consumer coops and `community supported agriculture' are examples where consum-
ers join their buying power to facilitate the extension of SFSCs (Alonso Mielgo and
Guzmän Casado, 2001; Farnsworth et al, 1996; Mormont and van Huylenbroeck,
2001). Networks are mostly based on spatial proximity, whereby products are sold in
the region (or place) of production, and consumers (for example, tourists) are made
aware of the `local' nature of the product at the point of retail. The articulation of
activities in space and time by organising specific events, fairs, or thematic routes
(Brunori and Rossi, 2000) may contribute to the regional identity of products, attract
customers, and thereby enhance a further stretching out of SFSCs. Producer ^ con-
sumer networks may also be based on cultural proximity, as exemplified by the sale
of regional specialities to emigrants (LEADER, 2000). Proximate SFSCs often include
intermediary actors in the agrofood chain, whereby these take over the role of guaran-
teeing product authenticity. Examples are local shops and restaurants (for regional
products), but also specialised retailers like `wholefood' and dietetic shops which play
an important role in the marketing of organic products (Michelsen et al, 2000; Miele,
2001).
A third category further enlarges the reach of SFSCs to extended relations in time
and space. Here, products are sold to consumers outside the region of production who
may have no personal experience of that locality. In most cases products are exported
from the region to national markets, but some extended SFSCs may span large
distances covering the globe. Examples of these are well-known regional specialities
like Champagne wine or Parmigiano Reggiano cheese (de Roest, 2000), but also `fair
trade' products like coffee and tea (Renard, 1999; Whatmore and Thorne, 1997). These
global networks are still `short' food supply chains: it is not the distance over which a
product is transported that is critical, but the fact that it is embedded with value-laden
information when it reaches the consumer, for example, printed on packaging or
communicated at the point of retail. This enables the consumer to make connections
with the place/space of production and, potentially, with the values of the people
involved and production methods employed. The successful translation of information
allows products to be differentiated from more anonymous commodities and command
a premium price if the encoded information is considered valuable by consumers.
Extended SFSCs depend critically on institutionalised conventions, codes, and
mediators that enable both a lengthening of producer ^ consumer networks and `acting
at a distance' (Whatmore and Thorne, 1997). Sometimes networks may be aligned on
the basis of `reputation effects' (Shapiro, 1983), but here it is difficult to safeguard the
exclusivity of the product, and markets become prone to imitations and downward
pressure on prices. Mostly, extended SFSCs therefore involve the creation of more
formalised institutional codes (for example, labels), which specify regulations for
Understanding alternative food networks 401

production, processing, and other stages of the agrofood chain. The authenticity
of products, rather than being founded in networks of trust and confidence, is backed
up by securing a formal juridical basis for brands and labels and by involving
external, independent bodies for control and certification. The transaction costs
resulting from this, and the relatively high transport costs, accentuate the importance
of economies of scale and may turn larger (conventional) market parties into
`obligatory passage points' (Callon, 1986) within extended SFSC networks.
The specific quality definitions and conventions involved in the operation of new
food networks are a second dimension differentiating empirical expressions of SFSCs.
All SFSCs operate, in part at least, on the principle that the more embedded and
differentiated a product becomes, the scarcer it becomes in the market. Product differ-
entiation implies the construction of transparent market relations around specific sets
of quality definitions that are shared by all parties involved, and are sufficiently
communicated to consumers to convince them of paying premium prices. When we
look at the empirical variety of SFSCs, two main categories of quality definitions may
be identified (see figure 3).

Regional or artisanal Ecological or natural

characteristics paramount characteristics paramount
(link with place of (link with bioprocesses)
production or producer)
designation of origin (for example, organic
protected domination of origin/ integrated
protected geographical indication) natural
3
3
farm or cottage foods healthy, safe
typical, speciality `hybrids' free range
on-farm processed GMO free
traditional
fair trade

Figure 3. Different quality definitions and conventions employed within short food supply chains.

A first category of SFSCs mainly stresses the link between quality attributes of
the product and its place of production or producer. Specific characteristics of the place
of production (natural conditions, cultural and gastronomic traditions, etc) or the
production process (artisanal, traditional, farm based, etc) are critical parameters to
define the quality of the product, and in many cases are claimed to result in distinctive
(typical) tastes or appearances. The most clear example of this is regional speciality
foods with (protected) origin indications (Sylvander et al, 2000).(9) Farm or cottage foods,
rather, stress the artisanal nature of the production process and the experience and skills
of the producer, but in many cases implicitly also refer to cultural heritage and (local)
traditions. Quality definitions based on `fair trade' are also included for their emphasis
on links with producers, although in this case considerations of ethics and justice are
paramount.
A second group of SFCSs defines quality in terms of the links of food production
and consumption with bioprocesses. This includes products that, in response to public
concerns over ecology, are distinguished by environmentally sound production meth-
ods such as organic and integrated production. Apart from clearly specified labels,
there is a vast range of products with more general claims of being `natural'. Partly,
these draw upon romantic images of (traditional) farming, but they also express a
tendency towards the valorisation of multifunctional forms of agriculture, for example,
for their contribution to rural nature and landscapes. This category also includes
(9) PDO (protected denomination of origin) and PGI (protected geographical indication) products

are regulated under EU regulation 2081/92.

402 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

products conceived as more healthy and safe. Although such claims are rarely made
explicit, there appears to be a widespread `common sense' idea among consumers that
products produced with less chemical substances (or GMO free) are more healthy
(Nygard and Storstad, 1998). A type of quality definition included here concerns `free
range' products, distinguished by respect for the natural behaviour and welfare of
animals.
It should be stressed that in reality clear distinctions between various quality defini-
tions can often not be made and that boundaries between categories become blurred.
Partly, this results from associations made by consumers as indicated above, but also
several SFSCs actively create `hybrids' of different quality attributes. This is, for example,
the case for regional products, which as part of product imagery emphasise, the role of
farming in safeguarding rural landscapes, also there are examples of environmentally
sustainable products that extend product identity with a regional dimension. It should be
stressed that quality conventions involve more than merely the language of production
regulations: they most of all refer to the perceptions and discourses of actors involved
and are influenced by their personal (lay) knowledge, interests, and cultural backgrounds.
It may be clear that at this point important struggles occur between actors involved in
SFSCs, as well as attempts to construct compromises and coalitions.

4 Empirical evidence on the incidence and impact of AFNs in Europe

The described typology enables us to come to a better understanding of the underlying
mechanisms and dynamics of SFSCs and, as was demonstrated elsewhere (see Marsden
et al, 2000a), may be successfully applied for a comparative analysis of case examples
of AFNs. For this paper we will not follow this line of argument; rather, we widen our
perspective and explore more quantitative empirical evidence on the overall incidence
and impact of SFSCs in Europe. We need to recognise that any attempt to obtain such a
wider overview is seriously hampered by the lack of official data of sufficient reach and
quality (Knickel and Renting, 2000), and therefore has to remain exploratory. As a result,
many of the deeper conceptual questions raised above remain speculative. In fact, the
only type of SFSC for which in recent years some more standardised (also not unpro-
blematic) data at European level are emerging concerns organic farming. For all other
fields, any comprehensive overview is lacking, which obviously represents a major
obstacle for an appropriate monitoring and analysis of these new rural developments.
Despite these limitations, the IMPACT project succeeded to make an overview of
the spread and impact of SFSCs in seven European countries: together these countries
represent some 75 ^ 85% of farming in the EU15.(10) Where possible, data were used
from official (national) statistics and secondary sources, but in many cases a range of
complementary research methods (including surveys, expert consultation, and `grey'
data) had to be applied (Renting et al, 2002). Table 1 gives an overview of the incidence
of different types of SFSC as obtained through the application of this `toolbox'
approach. The figures give a reasoned and consistent indication of the range and
diversity of SFSCs throughout Europe, with respect to both their incidence and the
type of activities in different national settings. We need to keep in mind that probably
`blind spots' still remain, and therefore actual numbers might still be higher. Also, for
reasons of data availability the year 1998 was taken as reference, and since then SFSCs
appear to have expanded significantly.
In view of the available data, a differentiated typology of SFSCs as set out above
unfortunately could not be fully applied. Rather, data were collected according to three
(10)These are: the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, and France.
Together they represent 76% of the total number of farms, 84% of utilised agricultural area, and
84% of the total net value added of agriculture (Eurostat 1997 data).
Table 1. Estimated incidence of short food supply chains (SFSCs) in seven European countries (1998).

Understanding alternative food networks

The Netherlands England and Wales Germany Italy Spain Ireland France

Organic 962 certified 1125 certified 9200 certified 43 698 certified 7392 certified 900 certified 8140 certified
farming farms farms farms farms farms farms farms
Quality 1600 farms with 700 farms with speciality 190 on-farm 30 PDO cheeses 113 designated 30 farms with Overall 182 500
produc- quality-beef label products, including meat dairy processing (40 000 farms) PDO/PGI products, farmhouse farms (Census
tion 850 farms with free- (203), cheese (98), 21 000 farm distilleries 24 PDO/PGI meat including: wines cheese 2001), covering:
range eggs yoghurt (70), ice-cream 1000 fruit processing products (6000 (156 000 farms), 130 farms with 543 AOC/AOP
150 farms with free- (77), wine (63), fruit juice 11 000 farms with farms) olive oil (27 000), other farmhouse labels
range meat and cider (77), pickles quality vines 24 PDO/PGI olive cheeses, fresh meats, or cottage foods 8000 farms and
690 on-farm and preserves (56), water 130 farms with free- oils (2000 farms) vegetables (c.2000), (breads and 4500 processors
dairy processing (7), bakery products (42), range eggs 443 DOC/DOCG/ fruits (c.11 000), cakes, jams and AOC/AOP
90 on-farm goat and and beer (21) 150 cooperative quality IGT wines (154 000 legumes (320), preserves, meat cheese and beef
sheep milk processing 1100 farms with projects (7500 farms) farms) honey, raisins (4100), products) 59 400 farms
30 farmer groups with (regional) quality-beef 60 ± 80 regional quality 25 PDO/PGI fruits, rice (6700) and with quality
regional products label meat projects (3500 vegetables, and tubers (750) wine of which
(400 ± 500 farms) 550 farms with (regional) farms) cereals (1800 farms) various other 33 000 AOP
1500 ± 2000 small- quality-sheep label 50 regional quality 6 other PDO/PGI regional labels 630 other labels,
scale food producers crops projects products (1000 of autonomous such as Label
farms) communities Rouge and IGP
(51 000 farms)
Direct 4715 farms with on- 2850 farm shops 24 000 farms with direct Overall 800 000 Overall 90 000 650 farms with Overall 102 000
selling farm sales (roadside 250 farmers markets sales farms, of which: farms, including markets stalls (Census 2000),
sales, farm shops) (5000 farms) 110 cooperative farm wine (185 000 farms) farmers markets, 80 farms with of which:
33 organic farmers 1450 pick your own shops cheese (c. 125 000) door-to-door selling, box schemes c. 40 000 farms
markets (100 farms) 3450 farms with farm- 240 regional marketing olive oil (280 000) farm gate sales 56 farms with with farm gate
100 farms with box gate or roadside sales projects (7200 farms) vegetables and 21 producer ± roadside sales sales (no
schemes 200 farmer markets potatoes (85 000) consumer production)
120 farms with home (1600 farms) fruits (49 000) associations of c. 60 000 farms
deliveries 1100 farms with meat meat (c. 300 000) organic products with on-farm
500 ± 1000 farms with packaging eggs (175 000) processing for
washing, cutting, 500 farms with home honey (10 000) direct sales
prepacking deliveries or box
schemes
2000 pick your own
Notes: AOCöappellation d'origine controªlëe, AOPöappellation d'origine protëgëe, DOCödenominazione d'origine controllata, DOCG ö
denominazione d'origine controllata e garantita, IGP öindication d'origine protëgëe, IGT öindicazione geografica tipica, PDO öprotected denomination
of origin, PGIöprotected geographical indication.

403
N:/psfiles/epa3503w/
404 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

different, empirically defined, fields of activity: organic farming, quality production

(including on-farm processing), and direct selling. Whereas the category of direct selling
largely coincides with face-to-face SFSCs, organic farming and quality production may
cover all three types of SFSC and are mainly defined by the type of quality definition
employed. These problems of data availability and consistency represent one of the key
methodological barriers currently involved in exploring new rural development practices.
More specifically, the problem is how to explore relational supply chain categories,
based, as outlined before, either upon different space ^ time relationships (figure 2) or
the diversity of quality definitions and conventions constructed (figure 3). Tables 1 and 2
indicate more distinctly farm-based outcomes: that is, broader farm-based aggregated
expressionsöorganics, quality production, and direct sellingöof these deeper relational
supply chains.
Nevertheless, on the basis of these constructions of estimates of the incidence of
SFSCs, it was also possible to develop a range of indicators of their socioeconomic
impact. The number of farms involved in SFSCs were first of all related to the total
number of farms (Eurostat 1997 data) so as to compare the degree of dissemination of
Table 2. Socioeconomic impact levels of short food supply chains (SFSCs) and two other rural
development activities in seven European countries and projected levels for EU15 (1998).

The Netherlands United Kingdom Germany

Organic farming
DNVA (million Euro) 23 25 84
% of total NVA 0.3 0.2 0.8
number of farms involved 962 1462 9 200
% of total number of farms 0.9 0.6 0.6
% of farms over 2 ESU 0.9 0.8 2.1
Quality production
DNVA (million Euro) 85 54 209
% of total NVA 1.3 0.5 2.0
number of farms involved 3 000 3 200 40 000
% of total number of farms 2.8 1.4 7.5
% of farms over 2 ESU 2.8 1.7 9.3
Direct selling
DNVA (million Euro) 68 318 678
% of total NVA 1.0 3.0 6.4
number of farms involved 6 000 14 700 35 000
% of total number of farms 5.6 6.3 6.5
% of farms over 2 ESU 5.6 7.9 8.1
Agritourism
DNVA (million Euro) 20 331 615
% of total NVA 0.3 3.1 5.8
number of farms involved 2 500 19 400 62 000
% of total number of farms 2.3 8.3 11.6
% of farms over 2 ESU 2.3 10.5 14.3
Nature and landscape management
DNVA (million Euro) 12 71 156
% of total NVA 0.2 0.7 1.5
number of farms involved 12 000 46 300 100 000
% of total number of farms 11.1 19.8 18.7
% of farms over 2 ESU 11.1 25.0 23.2
Note: NVAÐnet value added, DNVAÐadditionally generated net value added, ESUÐeconomic
size units.
Understanding alternative food networks 405

the activity. The same figures were also related to the number of farms with a minimum
economic size of 2 ESU (economic size units), in order to correct for (the sometimes
substantial) number of small `hobby farms'. Generally speaking, SFSCs appear to
be mainly taken up by medium-sized farm businesses: a minimum production level
is often necessary to make the activity viable and to generate sufficient income to
finance investments, whereas large volumes are sometimes at odds with the specific
and differentiated processing and marketing structures involved.
To explore the national economic importance of SFSCs, their socioeconomic
impact was also expressed in terms of the additional net value generated. This appears
to be the most appropriate measure for socioeconomic impact, because it covers both
family labour and employed labour remunerated by the activity. It therefore expresses
rural development benefits, at both farm and regional level. The additional net value
added generated on top of conventional agricultural production (DNVA) was used as a
measure to express the rural development gains of SFSCs in comparison to more
conventional, productivist development trajectories. The presented data have been
elaborated on the basis of farm economic studies, representative sets of farm accounts,
Table 2 (continued).

Italy Spain Ireland France EU15 projection

214 42 2.1 31 640

1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6
43 698 7 392 900 8 140 102 000
1.9 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.5
3.5 1.0 0.7 1.5 2.2

865 142 16 887 2 724

4.3 0.8 0.6 3.5 2.4
143 000 224 000 160 182 500 804 000
6.2 18.5 0.1 26.8 11.5
11.5 28.8 0.1 32.7 17.4

328 262 1.7 840 3 012

1.6 1.5 0.1 3.3 2.7
800 000 90 000 790 102 000 1 420 000
34.6 7.4 0.5 15.0 20.2
64.4 11.6 0.6 18.3 30.6

131 8.8 13 76 1 441

0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.3
5 300 2 200 1 900 16 500 147 000
0.2 0.2 1.3 2.4 2.1
0.4 0.3 1.4 3.0 3.2

86 88 125 138 1 443

0.4 0.5 4.5 0.6 1.3
40 900 55 600 34 700 90 000 840 000
1.8 4.6 23.5 13.3 12.0
3.3 7.2 26.7 16.2 18.1
406 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

and expert opinions. Again, because of the unavailability of adequate data, impact
figures have the character of exploratory but reasoned estimates. Although their
accuracy can certainly be further improved, and their applicability to our earlier
typology (based upon qualitative case-study analysis) is still limited, the data do give
us a sufficient measure to explore the extent to which the production base of European
farming has shifted from productivist agriculture to rural-development-based SFSC
activities.
Given these methodological provisos, we can argue that the presented empirical
evidence on the incidence and impact of SFSCs in seven countries (tables 1 and 2)
makes it possible to progress a first comparative analysis of SFSCs at the European
level. The figures make clear that SFSCs have developed substantially in all countries.
If the figures are projected to European level it is estimated that on a total of 7 million
farms some 1.4 million farms (20%) were involved in direct selling, 800 000 (12%) in
quality production, while approximately 100 000 farms (1.5%) were engaged in organic
production. The relative shares even increase considerably when farms with a mini-
mum economic size of 2 ESU are taken as a reference. An important conclusion is that
between countries large differences occur in the incidence of SFSCs. In terms of the
number of farms involved, SFSCs are the most developed in Mediterranean countries
like Italy, France, and Spain, and also in Germany.
Activities of direct selling and quality production are widely disseminated here,
sometimes reaching shares of 15 ^ 35% of the total number of farms. SFSCs are much
less developed in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and Ireland is clearly
lagging behind with very small numbers of farms involved. In the first two countries,
SFSCs sometimes reach shares of 5 ^ 10%, whereas in Ireland figures never surpass 1%.
In terms of the number of farms, organic farming is generally much less developed than
other SFSCs, with the highest shares in Italy and France (1 ^ 2%). However, we need to
keep in mind that since 1998 the number of organic farms has increased rapidly and that
in countries not included in the sample (for example, Austria, Finland, Denmark) levels
of 5 ^ 10% of the total number of farms are reached (Yussefi and Willer, 2002).
There are also striking differences in the specific types of SFSC that are most
developed within the various countries. In countries such as Italy, Spain, and France
SFSC-development to a large extent appears to centre around activities of regional
quality production and direct selling, which built on long-lasting cultural and gastro-
nomic traditions. National and EU legislation for the juridical protection of quality
production (for example, PDO/PGI) here appears to have served as an appropriate
institutional environment for the consolidation (if not revival) of these activities.
Italy, Spain, and France together represent 280 of the 575 products that were registered
as PDO or PGI in Europe in 2001. The difference with the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands, and Ireland, which amongst them hold only 33 registered PDO/PGI
products, is striking (European Union, 2002). In countries like the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom, and to a certain extent also Germany, SFSC development is more
often based on `modern' quality definitions stressing, for example, environmental
sustainability or animal welfare. Also, new and innovative forms of marketing (such
as farm-shop groups, box schemes, farmers markets) appear more often to play a
critical role in SFSC development. The fact that in these countries the productivist
agricultural model developed more strongly, with negative implications for the survival
of traditional production and marketing systems, may play an important role. For
organic farming less striking differences between countries occur. In several countries,
such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Spain, organics continues
to be relatively weakly developed. The lack of sufficient domestic demand, but also
shortcomings in institutional support, are important factors. It is only in Italy and
Understanding alternative food networks 407

Germany that the organic sector appears to have left its initial low-development base
behind.
With respect to the socioeconomic impact of SFSCs (table 2), as expressed in the
additionally generated NVA compared with conventional agriculture, again very differ-
ent levels occur. Germany, Italy, and France are the countries where SFSCs have
reached the highest socioeconomic impact: organic farming, quality production, and
direct selling together here add some 7 ^ 10% to the total NVA realised in agriculture.
The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Spain obtain an intermediate position with
around 2 ^ 4%, whereas in Ireland less than 1% is added to the total NVA by the
development of SFSCs. These figures at first sight may appear low, but they only
refer to the additional NVA generated by activities. Data referring to the total NVA
associated with SFSC activities unfortunately are not available for most countries.
However, for Italy it is known that the total NVA (including primary production) of
organic farming, quality production, and direct selling amounts to 5395 million Euro
or 29% of the total NVA of the agricultural sector, implying that an important share
of the overall production base of Italian farming is geared to SFSC development
(van der Ploeg et al, 2002).
Table 2 also presents impact data for two other rural development practices ö
agritourism and nature and landscape managementöthat do not directly coincide
with SFSCs. The figures demonstrate that SFSCs should not be seen in isolation
from overall rural development patterns, and that each country is characterised by a
specific composition of rural development practices in response to national contextual
factors, of which SFSCs provide one significant part. For example, in Ireland, where
SFSCs are rather weakly developed, nature and landscape management is much
more advanced than in any other national setting. The same activity is relatively
weakly developed in Italy and Spain, where, in contrast, SFSCs play a key role in overall
rural development patterns. The interrelations of SFSCs with other rural development
practices are especially important in view of possible synergies and multiplier effects
between different activities (van der Ploeg et al, 2000). For example, rural development
in Germany is characterised by high impact levels for direct sales and agritourism, which
points to a specific pattern of simultaneously developing SFSCs in combination with
agritouristic activities.
Such synergy effects, arising from the construction of coherent sets of compatible
and mutually reinforcing rural development practices, appear to play a crucial role in
the enhancement of impact levels, at both farm and regional level (Knickel and
Renting, 2000). Obviously, a highly relevant question here is how differentiated impact
levels relate to the categories of face-to-face, proximate, and spatially extended SFCS
as defined in the previous section. Case-study analysis (Brunori and Rossi, 2000;
Knickel, 2001) indicates that the degree of embeddedness of food production ^ con-
sumption systems in wider regional networks (rural districts) is an important factor
behind the spurring of rural development impacts and synergies. This would suggest
that especially proximate and face-to-face SFSCs are promising in this respect. An
analysis of these effects at more aggregated, national levels goes far beyond presently
available data-sets, and would suppose substantial improvements in data-collection
systems. Nevertheless, the figures presented here (table 2) suggest that proximate and
face-to-face producer ^ consumer relations, in spite of the overall growth of market
shares for SFSCs, continue to play an important role. Direct selling, largely coinciding
with face-to-face SFSCs, at overall European level represents the largest number of
farms involved and the highest impact levels. For organic and quality food products the
picture is more complex and highly differentiated between countries. Nevertheless, also
on leading organic markets like Germany, France, and Austria important shares
408 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

ranging from 27% to 65% continue to be commercialised through dedicated market

channels like farm-gate sales and specialised shops (Michelsen et al, 2000).

5 Conclusions: evolutionary dynamics and potentials of AFNs

SFSCs, with their focus on consumers' needs and sustainable modes of production,
may hold some of the keys to future developments of European farming in a context
where existing support measures are increasingly under debate in view of the present
WTO (World Trade Organisation) round, CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) reform,
and the enlargement of the European Union. However, a major question remains as to
whether this represents a long-lasting countermovement or a more short-term range of
aborted initiatives? The two differing types of analysis presented here have shown that
their development, although uneven in Europe, is by no means marginal. SFSCs have
developed substantially throughout Europe, and in some countries SFSC-centred
trajectories have become key elements of rural development.
At the same time, we need to recognise that even with significant degrees of success
there are examples of spatially extended SFSCs (see figure 2) and ecological types of
production (like organics, see figure 3) which can fall victim to appropriation by
retailers and other agribusiness concerns. In the United Kingdom, for instance, but
also in countries like Sweden and Denmark, over 70 ^ 80% of organic foods is traded
through corporate retailers (Michelsen et al, 2000). Some have suggested that the
increased corporate control over SFSCs brings with it the danger of a downward
pressure on producer prices and a dilution of quality standards, thereby undermining
the raison d'eªtre of SFSCs as such (Goodman, 2000; Vos, 2000). That SFSCs are
certainly not immune to the `price squeeze' effects characteristic of conventional mar-
kets also is clear from the experience of Parmigiano Reggiano, for which it is reported
that sales and farm margins are increasingly under threat as a result of the competition
of inferior cheeses with similar characteristics (de Roest, 2000). Table 1 and 2, however,
suggest that in certain regions and countries (most notably France, Italy, and
Germany) sufficient synergies between different types of rural development practices
can be mobilised to significantly add value to local production systems. This indicates
that the very process of shortening food supply chains, at least partly, engenders new
market relationships which are built around new forms of association and institutional
support. It also suggests that new rural development practices, such as SFSCs, are
leading to a revised geography of rural development across Europe. The underlying
new and reconstituted spatialities implicit in agrofood are being built and shaped
around new types of comparative advantage, competition, and power structures, it would
seem, which rely much more heavily upon constructing new synergies between proximate
relationships, associations, and ecological and regional food identities.
However, if SFSCs are able to play a lasting and significant role in the process of
agrarian-based rural development, it is important to identify and analyse evolutionary
patterns in their development and consider their long-term impact and future potentials.
This requires much more in-depth and longitudinal microanalysis of case studies as well
as the broader and exploratory typological and comparative analysis attempted here. In
particular, more work needs to focus upon the temporal, spatial, and demand evolution-
ary dynamics involved in SFSCs, so as to gauge whether they are economically, socially,
and environmentally more sustainable over the long term (see Marsden et al, 2000a).
In-depth analysis of case studies in this regard suggests that sustaining rural development
through the evolution of SFSCs must be based upon both institutional support and new
types of associational development involving a range of actors operating within the
chains and their surrounding networks. Furthermore, these relationships must alter and
reconfigure over time and space. Here, concerning the interactions between the farm,
Understanding alternative food networks 409

institutions, and the associational realm, and in appreciating the degree of variability
witnessed in both our conceptual typologies and statistical indicator analysis outlined
in this paper, there is no one dominant model of development. Such findings have
important theoretical as well as policy-relevant implications. If we are witnessing the
emergence of new rural economic relations out of the deepening crisis of industrial
agriculture, it would seem that new institutional practices and interventions will be
needed both to stimulate and to foster these diverse trends. In this paper we have begun
to scratch the conceptual and methodological surface of this emerging rural development
terrain. Much more theoretically guided and empirically focused research is needed
in this regard, given thatöeither intended or otherwiseöthe conventional agrofood
system and, more particularly its (statistical) governance, has tended to avoid giving
these developments the significant attention they deserve.
References
Alonso Mielgo A M, Guzmän Casado G I, 2001, ``Producer and consumer associations of
ecological produce in Andalusia'', IMPACT working paper ES4, Instituto de Sociolog|¨ a y
Estudios Campesinos, Cördoba
Banks J, 2001, ``Short food supply chains in the Marches'', IMPACT working paper UK2, Cardiff
University, Cardiff
Barjolle D, Boisseaux S, Dufour M, 1998 Le Lien au Terroir. Bilan des Travaux de Recherche [Link to
the terroir: an overview of research works] Institut d'Eèconomie Rurale, Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology (ETHZ), Lausanne, http://www.aoc-igp.ch/ver-fr/pdf/terroir.pdf
Beck U, 1992 Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London)
Brunori G, Rossi A, 2000, ``Synergy and coherence through collective action: some insights from
wine routes in Tuscany'' Sociologia Ruralis 40 409 ^ 424
Callon M, 1986, ``Some elements of a sociology of translation'', in Power, Action and Belief
Ed. J Law (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) pp 196 ^ 233
Cochrane W, 1979 The Development of Industrial Agriculture: A Historical Analysis (University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
Council for Rural Areas, 1998 Trust and Care: Food Production in the 21st Century Council for
Rural Areas, Amersfoort (in Dutch)
de Roest K, 2000 The Production of Parmigiano ^ Reggiano Cheese. The Force of an Artisanal
System in an Industrialised World (Van Gorcum, Assen)
European Union, 2002 Agriculture in the European Union ö Statistical and Economic Information
2001 European Union, Brussels, http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/agrista/2001/table en/
index.htm
Eurostat, 1997 EUROFARM Structure of Agricultural Holdings (European Commission, Brussels)
Farnsworth R L, Thompson S R, Drury K A, Warner R E, 1996, ``Community supported
agriculture: filling a niche market'' Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(1) 90 ^ 98
Goodman D, 1999, ``Agro-food studies in the age of ecology: nature, corporeality, bio-politics''
Sociologia Ruralis 39 17 ^ 38
Goodman D, 2000, ``Organic and conventional agriculture: materializing discourse and agro-
ecological managerialism'' Agriculture and Human Values 17 215 ^ 219
Holloway L, Kneafsey M, 2000, ``Reading the space of the farmers' market: a case study from
the United Kingdom'' Sociologia Ruralis 40 285 ^ 299
IATP, 1998 Marketing Sustainable Agriculture: Case Studies and Analysis from Europe Institute
for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2105 First Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55404
Ilbery B, Bowler I, 1998, ``From agricultural productivism to post-productivism'', in The
Geography of Rural Change Ed. B Ilbery (Longman, London)
Ilbery B, Kneafsey M, 1999, ``Niche markets and regional speciality food products in Europe:
towards a research agenda'' Environment and Planning A 31 2207 ^ 2222
Knickel K, 2001, ``The marketing of Rho«ngold milk. An example of the reconfiguration of
natural relations with agricultural production and consumption'' Journal of Environmental
Policy and Planning 3(2) 123 ^ 136
Knickel K, Hof S, 2002, ``Direct retailing in Germany: farmer markets in Frankfurt'', in Living
Countrysides. Rural Development Processes in Europe: The State of the Art Eds D van der
Ploeg, J Banks, A Long (Elseviers, Doetinchem) pp 104 ^ 112
410 H Renting, T Marsden, J Banks

Knickel K, Renting H, 2000, ``Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of

multifunctionality and rural development'' Sociologia Ruralis 40 512 ^ 528
Lash S, Urry J, 1994 Economies of Signs and Spaces: After Organised Capitalism (Sage, London)
LEADER, 2000 Marketing Local Products. Short and Long Distribution Channels Rural Innovation
Dossier number 7, LEADER European Observatory, European Commission and Association
Europëenne pour l'Information sur le Dëveloppement Local, Brussels; http://www.rural-
europe.aeidl.be/rural-en/biblio/circuits/circuits.pdf
Long N, van der Ploeg J D, 1988 The Commoditization Debate. Labour Process, Strategy and
Social Networks (Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen)
Marsden T K, 1998, ``New rural territories: regulating the differentiated rural spaces'' Journal of
Rural Studies 14(1) 107 ^ 117
Marsden T K, Arce A, 1995, ``Constructing quality: emerging food networks in the rural
transition'' Environment and Planning A 27 1261 ^ 1279
Marsden T K, Banks J, Bristow G, 2000a, ``Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role
in rural development'' Sociologia Ruralis 40 424 ^ 438
Marsden T K, Flynn A, Harrison M, 2000b Consuming Interests: The Social Provision of Foods
(UCC Press, London)
Marsden T K, Renting H, Banks J, van der Ploeg J D, 2001, ``The road towards sustainable
agricultural and rural development: issues of theory, policy and research practice'' Journal of
Environmental Policy and Planning 3 75 ^ 83
Michelsen J, Hamm U,Wynen E, Roth E, 2000 The European Market for Organic Products: Growth
and Development. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy, Volume 7 (Universita«t
Hohenheim, Stuttgart)
Miele M, 2001 Creating Sustainability: The Social Construction of the Market for Organic Products
(Circle for Rural European Studies, Wageningen)
Mormont M, van Huylenbroeck G, 2001 A la recherche de la qualitë. Analyses socioëconomiques
sur les nouvelles filie©res agro-alimentaires [In search of quality: socioeconomic analysis of
new agrofood supply chains] (Eèditions de l'Universitë de Lie©ge, Lie©ge, Belgium)
Murdoch J, Marsden T K, Banks J, 2000, ``Quality, nature, and embeddedness: some theoretical
considerations in the context of the food sector'' Economic Geography 76(2) 107 ^ 125
Nygard B, Storstad O, 1998, ``De-globalisation of food markets? Consumer perceptions of safe
food: the case of Norway'' Sociologia Ruralis 38 35 ^ 53
OECD, 1995 Niche Markets as a Rural Development Strategy (OECD, Paris)
Pretty J, 1998 The Living Land: Agriculture, Food and Community Regeneration in Rural Europe
(Earthscan, London)
Renard M C, 1999, ``The interstices of globalization: the example of fair coffee'' Sociologia
Ruralis 39 484 ^ 500
Renting H, van der Ploeg J D, 2001, ``Reconnecting nature, farming and society: environmental
cooperatives in the Netherlands as institutional arrangements for creating coherence''
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3 85 ^ 101
Renting H, Roep D, Knickel K, 2002, ``A methodological toolbox for assessing the socio-
economic impact of rural development practices'' IMPACT working paper, Wageningen
University, Wageningen
Roep D, 2002, ``The added value of quality and region: The Waddengroup Foundation'', in
Living Countrysides. Rural Development Processes in Europe: The State of the Art
Eds J D van der Ploeg, J Banks, A Long (Elseviers, Doetinchem) pp 88 ^ 98
Schucksmith M, 1993, ``Farm household behaviour and the transition to post-productivism''
Journal of Agricultural Economics 44 466 ^ 478
Shapiro C, 1983, ``Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputation'' The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 98 659 ^ 680
Stassart P, Engelen G (Eds), 1999 Du Savoir au Saveurs, 101 Chemins pour une Alimentation de
Qualitë [From knowledge to taste, 101 roads to quality food] (Fondation Universitaire
Luxembourgeoise, Arlon et Vredeseilanden-Coopibo, Leuven)
Sylvander B, Barjolle D, Arfini F (Eds), 2000 The Socio-economics of Origin Labelled Products
in Agri-Food Supply Chains: Spatial, Institutional and Co-ordination Aspects. Eèconomie et
Sociologie Rurales 2 Volumes, INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris)
van Broekhuizen R, Klep L, Oostindie H, van der Ploeg J D, 1997 Renewing the Countryside. An
Atlas with Two Hundred Examples from Dutch Rural Society (Misset, Doetinchem)
van der Ploeg J D, Frouws J, 1999, ``On power and weakness, capacity and impotence: rigidity
and flexibility in food chains'' International Planning Studies 4 333 ^ 347
Understanding alternative food networks 411

van der Ploeg J D, Banks J, Long A (Eds), 2002 Living Countrysides. Rural Development Processes
in Europe: The State of the Art (Elseviers, Doetinchem)
van der Ploeg J D, Renting H, Brunori G, Knickel K, Mannion J, Marsden T K, de Roest K,
Sevilla-Guzmän E, Ventura F, 2000, ``Rural development: from practices and policies towards
theory'' Sociologia Ruralis 40(4) 391 ^ 408
Vos T, 2000, ``Visions of the middle landscape: organic farming and the politics of nature''
Agriculture and Human Values 17 245 ^ 256
Ward N, 1993, ``The agricultural treadmill and the rural environment in the post-productivist
era'' Sociologia Ruralis 23 348 ^ 364
Whatmore S, Thorne L, 1997, ``Nourishing networks: alternative geographies of food'', in
Postindustrial Natures: Culture, Economy and Consumption of Food Eds D Goodman,
M Watts (Routledge, London) pp 287 ^ 304
Yussefi M, Willer H, 2002 Organic Agriculture Worldwide 2002: Statistics and Future Prospects
http://www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/s 74 04.pdf
 ß 2003 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain

View publication stats